STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC et al
Filing
411
OPINION/ORDER THAT DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY IN NEW JERSEY'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND CONNECTICUT'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/28/13. 3/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff
vs.
RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER
HOLDINGS, LLC,
RRI ENERGY POWER GENERATION,
INC.,
SITHE ENERGIES, INC.,
now known as Dynegy, Inc., and
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.,
Defendants
and
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
Intervenor-Plaintiff
vs.
RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER
HOLDINGS, LLC,
RRI ENERGY POWER GENERATION,
INC.,
SITHE ENERGIES, INC.,
now known as Dynegy, Inc., and
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.,
Intervenor-Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action
No. 07-cv-05298
O R D E R
NOW, this 28th day of March, 2013, upon consideration of
the following documents:
(1)
Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment filed July 27, 2012 (Document
251), together with
(A)
Memorandum in Support of Defendant
Metropolitan Edison Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document 251-1);
(B)
(2)
Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute
filed by defendant Metropolitan Edison Company on
August 7, 2012 (Document 253), together with
(A)
(3)
Exhibits 1 through 26 to defendant
Metropolitan Edison Company’s memorandum
(Documents 251-2 through 251-5);
Exhibits 1 through 26 to defendant
Metropolitan Edison Company’s statement
of facts (Documents 253-1 through 2534)1;
Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Connecticut’s
Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison
Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which
opposition was filed August 17, 2012 (Document
257), together with
(A)
(B)
(4)
Plaintiff-Intervenor State of
Connecticut’s Statement of Material
Disputed Facts in Opposition to
Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Document
257-1);
Exhibits 1
intervenor
opposition
(Documents
through 27 to plaintiffState of Connecticut’s
to summary judgment
257-2 through 259-3)2;
Plaintiff New Jersey’s Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendant Metropolitan Edison
Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which
opposition was filed August 17, 2012 (Document
261), together with
(A)
Plaintiff New Jersey’s Statement of
1
The Exhibits attached to defendant Metropolitan Edison Company’s
statement of facts are identical to the Exhibits attached to their memorandum
in support of their motion for summary judgment.
2
Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Connecticut does not label the
attachments to its opposition. However, Connecticut supplied the court with a
courtesy copy of its papers, which separate the attachments into 27 exhibits.
Connecticut’s 27 exhibits are identical to New Jersey’s 27 exhibits.
-ii-
Facts in Opposition to Defendant
Metropolitan Edison Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document 261-1);
(B)
(C)
Exhibits NJ-1 through NJ-27 to plaintiff
State of New Jersey’s declaration of
counsel (Documents 261-3 through 26110);
(D)
Declaration of Alan Dresser (Document
261-11), together with
(E)
(5)
Declaration of Counsel in Support of
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document 261-2),
together with
Exhibits A through C to the declaration
of Alan Dresser (Document 261-12);
Metropolitan Edison Company’s Reply to States’
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, which
reply was filed on September 17, 2012 (Document
265), together with
(A)
Metropolitan Edison Company’s Reply to
States’ Statement of Material Facts in
Opposition, which reply was filed
September 5, 2013 (Document 262-2);
(B)
Declaration of Counsel in Support of
Metropolitan Edison Company’s Reply
Brief in Support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment, which declaration was
filed September 5, 2013 (Document
262-3);
(C)
Exhibits 27 through 40 filed
September 5, 2013 (Documents 262-2
through 262-8);
(D)
Rosenthal Ex. 1 through 20 filed
September 5, 2013 (Documents 262-9
through 262-12)3;
3
Exhibit 34 to defendant Metropolitan Edison Company’s reply is an
Affidavit of Roberta A. Rosenthal in Support of Metropolitan Edison Company’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Document 262-6).
-iii-
(6)
Plaintiff New Jersey’s Surreply Memorandum in
Opposition to Metropolitan Edison Company’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, which surreply was filed
October 2, 2012 (Document 269);
(7)
Supplemental Evidence filed by plaintiff State of
New Jersey on February 13, 2013 (Document 355);
(8)
Supplemental Evidence filed by defendant
Metropolitan Edison Company on February 13, 2013
(Document 356);
(9)
Supplemental Brief in Support of Metropolitan
Edison Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
which brief was filed February 27, 2013 (Document
385-1);
(10) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company’s
Supplemental Brief Regarding Gabelli in Support of
Its Motion for Summary Judgment, which memorandum
was filed March 11, 2013 (Document 393); and
(11) Metropolitan Edison Company’s Reply to States’
Opposition to Supplemental Brief in Support of
Motion for Summary Judgment, which reply was filed
March 14, 2013 (Document 401-1);
after oral argument conducted February 22, 2013; and for the
reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Metropolitan Edison
Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the claims asserted against
defendant Metropolitan Edison Company in New Jersey’s Second
Amended Complaint and Connecticut’s Second Amended Complaint-inIntervention are dismissed with prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge
-iv-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?